Forum:BF4 Campaign and CTW Issues
Battlefield 4: Countdown to War takes place before and during the BF4 Campaign, ending just before Tombstone boards the USS Titan on South China Sea. We need to add the info to the mission pages (at least some background). We would also need to link it to CTW. That being said the main campaign of BF4 also needs to be linked to CTW to give a better understanding. -- 17:14, April 22, 2014 (UTC) Discussion Here's a better question? Why the fuck are we caring about a book and SP which most (if not all) people would not give a damn. Didn't you hear? The mp is the most important part of battlefield yet look at the articles for vehicles/weapons they're the same as they were 6 months ago...-- ''Slopijoe''''Heil dir im Siegerkranz'' 17:34, April 22, 2014 (UTC) :To be fair, Tywin has a point. MP articles should be a much larger priority, as many weapon, vehicle, and map pages are still very much incomplete. Anyone who cares about the campaign or CTW is in a very small minority. 19:01, April 22, 2014 (UTC) I have the best question of all. If you didnt give a fuck why post your two cents on the forum? Answer that. -- 19:34, April 22, 2014 (UTC) :He can do as he wants. It's a democracy after all. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 19:48, April 22, 2014 (UTC) @Arrow, applying that logic, if we were to edit MP-related pages only, then the campaign/story pages would fall to the quality of what the MP pages are currently at. What matters not is whether someone "cares", it's about recognizing that there is an issue and, rather than labeling and prioritizing, we work on the pages themselves (that need to be worked on / are of inferior quality in comparison to other pages). Just my two cents on the matter. 20:59, April 22, 2014 (UTC) :Thank You! -- 21:18, April 22, 2014 (UTC) :Untrue. Articles that go unedited remain the same until somebody edits them. There is no natural decay. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:01, April 22, 2014 (UTC) ::I meant to address the point of "prioritizing" certain articles over other ones. They should be edited equally and to quality that meets Standard classification or better. 01:00, April 23, 2014 (UTC) :::Considering that nobody has been editing the pages, that's not what's been happening. You people are focusing on a small subset of pages whereas the overall state of BF4 articles is in the toilet. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 01:05, April 23, 2014 (UTC) ::::Which is why I am glad Awy posted this forum, even moreso due to Tywin's reply essentially pointing that out to us all. Discussions like these promote action. 01:10, April 23, 2014 (UTC) :::::No, they don't; action is based almost entirely on an individual's predilection to edit. Coming from some five years of editing and administrating experience, I can tell you that forums don't do jack-shit. If people are going to edit, they're going to edit; forums only help when the editors are keen to edit to start with, and seeing how nobody here is keen to do so, this forum (and any others on the subject) will come to naught until there's an improvement in the core editing spirit of the users here. :::::You can't force or encourage a user to edit. Efforts like this merely cause a brief spike in activity, but that spike will very quickly taper off to the same inactivity that preceded it. And then it's the same situation as we started with. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 01:45, April 23, 2014 (UTC) :I have made numerous posts over the things needing done reguarding MP only to be ignored. If people care so much about them then edit them. -- 01:19, April 23, 2014 (UTC) ::You haven't made any significant effort to improve those articles yourself, so why would you expect people to pick up where you couldn't even start? It's not difficult to edit yourself, people; if Tywin and I can do several articles in less than an hour, surely if you guys would actually start editing the gears would get turning. Lead by example instead of leading by dictation. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 01:45, April 23, 2014 (UTC)